IntroductionPaul Ricoeur's late reflections on justice, found in two collections of essays1 and other dispersed articles,2 are a touchstone of his practi- cal philosophy. Like in other domains of his philosophical work, his approach to justice is indirect. Indeed, if there is a 'theory' of justice to be found in his works, this is a theory that is not developed in a systematic way. Ricoeur prefers to linger over theoretical implications of semantic analysis of adjective 'just,' analyzing it through different angles. If, in The Just, he chooses to concentrate on relation between moral rule of justice and its concrete application in institutions (and judicial praxis), in his later Reflections on Just he undertakes a deeper conceptual clarification of the just as a substan- tialized adjective.3In this article, I want to briefly look at and make more explicit a tension that inhabits his theory of justice, and which stems from one of main debates of last few decades in political philosophy. What I have in mind is tension between universal-itself rooted in a quasi-transcendental and foundation- alist ontological assertion of 'fundamental'-and 'historical,' understood as contingent and context-dependent traits of human experience that stem from a particular course of history. As I will try to show, this tension assumes in Ricoeur's philosophy a specific form. Ultimately, it will be seen that perhaps fundamental is nothing more than ontological power of our action.Ricoeur's own standpoint is one of mediation in debate between liberals and communitarians, in which both human constants-with their corresponding universalizing traits-and plurality of values, spheres of justice and life-forms are recognized. This position in between liberals and communitarians brings him very close to some claims put forward by Charles Taylor, even though coincidence between their respective positions is evidently not absolute.The first part of my paper will be dedicated to fleshing out peculiarity of Ricoeur's theory of justice. I will emphasize role of conflict in his work, as well as what he takes to be usefulness of judicial and judiciary systems in tackling conflict. In order to show how he eventually reaches middle ground in debate between fundamental, universal and historical, I will then turn to his critical reading of Charles Taylor's Sources of Self and to way in which Ricoeur places his reading of Taylor in overarching framework of debate between liberals and communitarians. This will be core of second part of this paper.In third part I want put forward an interpretation that emphasizes defense of plurality and insistence on unexpected and decisive power of human action that we can find in writings of Michael Walzer and Hannah Ar- endt. These two philosophers exerted some influence on Ricoeur's own reflections on politics and justice and I will use them to complement some of Ricoeur's claims.In my very concise fourth part I want to take a glimpse at expanding horizons of justice, mainly by mentioning yet another instantiation of debate between universal and historical. There, I will look at some of latest developments of Nancy Fraser's theory of justice, with her emphasis on both fragmented and dispersed claims for justice (in terms of economic redistribu- tion, cultural recognition and political representation) and challenges posed by globalization. Finally, in my conclusion I will argue that difficult histori- cal situation facing us nowadays must be grasped against backdrop of our fundamental power to act and change course of events.I. The Fleshing out of Ricoeur's theory of Justice and overarching role of conflictThe notion of conflict plays a decisive role in context of Ricoeur's philosophy. …